Why no Venus missions since Verena in the 70's ?

Shiraz 4.99

All this talk of getting to Pluto & beyond makes me wonder why we've never tried to go back to Venus.
Yes 450 degrees C & 90 atmospheres but it's a bit embarrassing that the only pictures we have of the surface are of this type.





In fact a flying drone of some sort may reveal flowing lava & active eruptions, I'd love to see us go back in our lifetime.

Hmmzis

There was Venus Express flown and run by ESA. Before that there was another mission that maped the whole planet with radar (Magellan). Also, a good few of the other probes we have out there have made flybys (Messenger, Cassini).

The problem with landers is the pressure and tempertures, as you already stated. It would be very hard to get any electronics working there for any decent amount of time. The soviet probes only lasted for about an hour or so on the surface. Some floating blimps have been proposed but since they would be well above the clouds or inside them the surface would still be only visible by radar. Plus, there's the small issue of sulphuric acid in the clouds as well.

From a scientific point of view it would be absolutely awesome though. Also, the stuff that would have to be invented to make a probe last there would be of enourmous benefit for us back here on Earth.

Turtwig

It would be nice, scratch that, it would be awesome! Unfortunately, it's about as as feasible as a mission to the corona of the sun. We simply don't know how to make reliable instruments for such environments. No real 'new' science can be done on the surface of Venus.

Shiraz 4.99

Turtwig wrote: »

No real 'new' science can be done on the surface of Venus.

Of course you could, we could drop cans of beans & watch them squash, bubble & burn, it would never get old.

Maximus Alexander

The big prize at the moment seems to be trying to find evidence of life, past or present, and my guess is that since Venus doesn't seem likely to deliver on that front all the money is going towards Mars, comets and icy moons. Whether or not anyone overtly states this, it seems to be a trend.

Also, budgets slashes all over the place mean that bang-for-the-buck is a big driver and any mission to the surface of Venus would be a lot more expensive (I presume) than the alternatives.

Venus express was chilling out in orbit until only a week or so ago.

JupiterKid

There have been a number of Venus orbiter missions like Magellan (which mapped the surface of Venus by radar in exquisite detail) and ESA's Venus Express but no landers since the Venera missions of the early 1980s. The problem is twofold: budgets and funding are directed towards missions to places where life and liquid water are possible (Mars and the outer planet moons) and the extreme temperatures and pressures on the surface of Venus that will cripple a lander very quickly.

There has been talk in NASA and JPL about a future Venus lander mission but that's all it has been - talk and no firm plans. It's possible the Russians or maybe the Chinese may attempt a new Venus lander mission in the next 20 years.

littlemac1980

Just as a matter of interest - if anyone has the answer - what is the highest pressure level in the sea at a depth which we have reliable operating probes.

I would have thought we have probes capable of operating close to those that would be expected on the surface of Venus.

The temperature issue is of course another major hurdle, but where there's a will there's a way.

I may be wrong, but I would have thought the conditions around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor wouldn't be too dissimilar in terms of Pressure and Temperature to enable us to "relatively easily" test designs and concepts on Earth before perfecting them for a mission to Venus.

I know there are other hurdles, such as getting through the atmosphere and landing (but assuming the photos above aren't in fact of a plot of ground on a farm a few miles outside St. Petersburg, that's been achieved before).

Am I being too ambitious?

Maximus Alexander

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest - if anyone has the answer - what is the highest pressure level in the sea at a depth which we have reliable operating probes.

Something like the Tiburon can go to a depth of 4000m where the pressure is about 4 times that of the Venusian surface. But it weighs about 3.35 tons, which is about 4 times the mass of the Curiosity rover and that's before you start doing whatever needs to be done to harden it against the heat and allow it to land safely.

I expect the money involved in building a suitable mission would be... prohibitive.

nokia69

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Am I being too ambitious?

no, most would agree that its possible to build better probes for Venus but its just not a planet that people have much interest in exploring

there is a long list of other planets/dwarf planets or moons to be explored

The One Doctor

The heat problem can be solved by using a Stirling engine as a heat pump.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12905-antique-fridge-could-keep-venus-rover-cool.html#.VMkct2isXz4

The pressure problem is surmountable by having nothing except the electronics pressurised on the lander.

Venus fascinates me like almost no other planet. Mars seems like terminal boredom compared to Venus.

JupiterKid

There's certainly interest in Venus by the scientific community - many want new lander missions on the surface - one to land on a tesserae type surface (the folded, older type of surface revealed by Magellan) and one on a lava plain or even on the edge of a volcano but the cost of such a mission is prohibitive given the limited funding available for planetary exploration.

The Russians showed that it can be done - they landed six probes on the surface of Venus, four of which sent back pictures and they have the ability to do it again but I haven't heard of any plans to send a new Venus lander mission. It would require major advances in material science and electronics to get a probe to function for any length of time, given the pressure and temperature. A Venus rover would be seriously cool but again, getting it to function for any length of time on the surface of Venus would be a huge challenge.

littlemac1980

I know until recently that Mars was considered our best hope for finding signs of life either extinct or else microbial.

Given the similarities of what we understand to be the conditions of the surface of Venus and those found around hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean floors, and considering we now know that there are very specific and unique organisms which can thrive in those circumstances then surely the possibility of finding actual life on venus in hugely more likely than on Mars.

One might also consider it a critical factor that Venus still has an atmosphere and tectonic activity and is a planet which is currently still "alive" while all evidence we have suggests mars is very much "dead".

If its the correct phrase to use then it appears that venus has a functioning "ecosystem" or at least has conditions (given what we know) which could allow for a functioning ecosystem.

I may be misusing the term ecosystem (the definition of which may be dependant upon actual life as a constituent element) but I think its obvious what I mean.

So bearing those things in mind (which may be rubbished by some posters with actual knowledge of the topic) it seems that the criteria by which we determine the benefit in a "cost/benefit" analysis of choosing where to focus our extra-terrestrial exploration perhaps need to be updated to take proper account of the value of putting real effort into exploring Venus in more detail.

Maximus Alexander

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I know until recently that Mars was considered our best hope for finding signs of life either extinct or else microbial.

Given the similarities of what we understand to be the conditions of the surface of Venus and those found around hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean floors, and considering we now know that there are very specific and unique organisms which can thrive in those circumstances then surely the possibility of finding actual life on venus in hugely more likely than on Mars.

There is one crucial difference though, being the total lack of water on Venus, bar trace amounts in the atmosphere. That's the killer for life as we know it.

littlemac1980

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There is one crucial difference though, being the total lack of water on Venus, bar trace amounts in the atmosphere. That's the killer for life as we know it.

That's true I know, but as far I'm aware, until the life-forms found around the geothermal vents were actually observed modern science believed that life could not exist at those temperatures.

So I suppose what I'm trying to say (though I'm sure you understand it to be the case) is that it would be very difficult for us to have discovered life on Earth which isn't dependant on water because our entire ecosystem evolved through the utilisation of water.

However, until the geothermal vents were examined, we would have had the same preconceptions in relation to temperature.

While there were transient natural observable events (e.g. Volcanos and magma vents etc.) which could be considered, those would have been exterior events which invaded otherwise stable ecosystems, therefore we didn't have a suitable natural and stable location to examine and observe where the temperature existed above 300 or 400 degrees for long enough periods to permit life to either emerge or adapt in a manner suitable to enable it survive and thrive.

So our conclusion, based on our observations and experiments at that time was that in would be killer for life (as we knew it) to be exposed to such temperatures - which was a correct based on our knowledge at the time, because we had no knowledge of a life-form which could survive in such high temperature environments, and any of the events we had observed or any experiments conducted led to conclusions that life is simply destroyed by such temperatures, with no exceptions.

I think our conclusion was at that time that temperatures of the order of 400 degrees would immediately destroy life, and so it could never have developed or evolved in a place with sustained temperatures above 400 degrees.

A similar conclusion regarding the necessity of water is similarly biased in accordance with we have observed to be fundamental to the existence of life. But we are biased because we live in a water dependant ecosystem. To use an simple analogy, if fish were scientists (and assuming they had no knowledge of life beyond the ocean) they could reasonably conclude that a necessary element of life was that it be submerged in water.

mickmackey1

We know that life is tremendously adaptable once it gets started, but that doesn't prove it can start in inhospitable locations.

Just because life is now found in hellish places on Earth doesn't mean it would have begun in those places if the entire Earth was inhospitable, as Venus is.

littlemac1980

mickmackey1 wrote: »

We know that life is tremendously adaptable once it gets started, but that doesn't prove it can start in inhospitable locations.

Just because life is now found in hellish places on Earth doesn't mean it would have begun in those places if the entire Earth was inhospitable, as Venus is.

No I'm not suggesting that it did start there. Of course we have no evidence that it didn't.

The fact is its all very hypotethical, but my point is really that certain conclusions (e.g. that water is necessary for all life) aren't provable until we have determined we have examined all life.

I remember, as an annoying 10 year old, having an argument with my teacher. He was insisting that life could only exist on an earth like planet while I was trying to get a point across that only earth like life would need an earth like planet.

There is nothing to say that life "but not as we know it" can not evolve in other environments (but Venus would be a radical shift from anything that we could imagine, unless they are Horta)

Water is a wonderful compound though, its chemistry allows for a lot of interactions that other "similar" molecules don't allow

littlemac1980

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember, as an annoying 10 year old, having an argument with my teacher. He was insisting that life could only exist on an earth like planet while I was trying to get a point across that only earth like life would need an earth like planet.

There is nothing to say that life "but not as we know it" can not evolve in other environments (but Venus would be a radical shift from anything that we could imagine, unless they are Horta)

Are you suggesting that your 10 year self was as smart as my current 34 year old self? lol

Venus would likely be a radical shift in terms of what we can imagine, but imagination can be limited by what we perceive. We are limited in our imagination by what we have observed, which is water dependant life.

Before the organisms were identified around the thermalvents they would have represented a radical shift too, in fact, they still represent a radical shift, but nonetheless they exist.

littlemac1980

Deleted User wrote: »

Water is a wonderful compound though, its chemistry allows for a lot of interactions that other "similar" molecules don't allow

Sorry you edited your post after I replied, I hadn't seen that point.

I'm not by any means "Water-Bashing". I think water is great.

I have some appreciation that water is in its own way special and our position in the solar system also allows it to exist in its three physical states on Earth.

I don't know enough about chemistry or biology to even begin to suggest there are other molecules which is certain circumstances (e.g. extreme heat and pressure) could act as substitutes for water. Or alternatively function in a completely different way to water but in a way that still manages to facilitate living organisms. Its possible I guess, but isn't everything you don't have information to draw conclusion about.

I'm just really trying to make a certain case that perhaps Venus has been unfairly ignored in recent years.

It could be that the reasons for the scientific community choosing to ignore it, are echoes of the heartbreak of coming to realise that our closet neighbouring planet and the one which in the 60's and 70's had been central to fostering dreams of finding aliens or life of sort turned out to be a savage and hellish place totally incapable of supporting life at that time.

It seems we haven't really gotten over that "heartbreak", and as a planetary couple we've never reconciled, despite the fact that recent discoveries have supported the dreams of the earliest interplanetary science expeditions, and our scientific knowledge has evolved to an extent that demonstrates that some of those things we thought were certain requirements of life, e.g. temperatures, are not so certain anymore.

Therefore the reasons for turning around and heading the other direction, though they still seem to factor into our considerations of Venus should no longer be thought of as central to our considerations.

Maximus Alexander

littlemac1980 wrote: »

That's true I know, but as far I'm aware, until the life-forms found around the geothermal vents were actually observed modern science believed that life could not exist at those temperatures.

So I suppose what I'm trying to say (though I'm sure you understand it to be the case) is that it would be very difficult for us to have discovered life on Earth which isn't dependant on water because our entire ecosystem evolved through the utilisation of water.

However, until the geothermal vents were examined, we would have had the same preconceptions in relation to temperature.

While there were transient natural observable events (e.g. Volcanos and magma vents etc.) which could be considered, those would have been exterior events which invaded otherwise stable ecosystems, therefore we didn't have a suitable natural and stable location to examine and observe where the temperature existed above 300 or 400 degrees for long enough periods to permit life to either emerge or adapt in a manner suitable to enable it survive and thrive.

So our conclusion, based on our observations and experiments at that time was that in would be killer for life (as we knew it) to be exposed to such temperatures - which was a correct based on our knowledge at the time, because we had no knowledge of a life-form which could survive in such high temperature environments, and any of the events we had observed or any experiments conducted led to conclusions that life is simply destroyed by such temperatures, with no exceptions.

I think our conclusion was at that time that temperatures of the order of 400 degrees would immediately destroy life, and so it could never have developed or evolved in a place with sustained temperatures above 400 degrees.

A similar conclusion regarding the necessity of water is similarly biased in accordance with we have observed to be fundamental to the existence of life. But we are biased because we live in a water dependant ecosystem. To use an simple analogy, if fish were scientists (and assuming they had no knowledge of life beyond the ocean) they could reasonably conclude that a necessary element of life was that it be submerged in water.

I certainly understand what you're getting at, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of life anywhere in the universe. However, we've only ever seen life that depends on water, we know that such a thing can exist, whereas anything else is speculative.

Thus, if you're going to spend a limited budget trying to find signs of life, Venus is naturally going to fall way down the list. Not because there's no possibility that it could, now or in the past, harbour some sort of life form. But because from what we know it seems unlikely, and you can get to better targets more cheaply.

littlemac1980

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that your 10 year self was as smart as my current 34 year old self? lol

Venus would likely be a radical shift in terms of what we can imagine, but imagination can be limited by what we perceive. We are limited in our imagination by what we have observed, which is water dependant life.

Before the organisms were identified around the thermalvents they would have represented a radical shift too, in fact, they still represent a radical shift, but nonetheless they exist.

Honestly my 10 year old self was smarter than my now about to hit 34 year old self

mickmackey1

If life could be truly alien we would see organisms on Mars eating rust and organisms on Jupiter breathing clouds of sulphur. They've had billions of years also, same as ourselves, but no sign of any biological activity.

So it seems reasonable to assume that life has fairly narrow parameters, and the more Earth-like the better.

littlemac1980

mickmackey1 wrote: »

If life could be truly alien we would see organisms on Mars eating rust and organisms on Jupiter breathing clouds of sulphur. They've had billions of years also, same as ourselves, but no sign of any biological activity.

So it seems reasonable to assume that life has fairly narrow parameters, and the more Earth-like the better.

Maybe its just my optimistic outlook... but I'd disagree entirely.

We haven't scratched the surface of Mars, and Jupiter and its moons would need to be checked for organisms breathing clouds of sulphur before we could rule out their existence and conclude that life's parameters are very narrow.

The truth is simply that we haven't really checked anywhere properly, even the moon.

It's unlikely there's any life to be found on the moon, but that's only a quantitive assessment of probability based on our own perceptions. Like you say yourself, when it comes to life anything is possible at this stage when we really know so so little.

mickmackey1

littlemac1980 wrote: »

We haven't scratched the surface of Mars, and Jupiter and its moons would need to be checked for organisms breathing clouds of sulphur before we could rule out their existence and conclude that life's parameters are very narrow.

Europa and Ganymede are interesting no doubt, but it will be at least 2030 (Juice mission) before we have a clue

littlemac1980

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Europa and Ganymede are interesting no doubt, but it will be at least 2030 (Juice mission) before we have a clue

Well if the last 15 years of my life are anything to go by, it'll be 2030 in no time at all! ;-)

littlemac1980

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Europa and Ganymede are interesting no doubt, but it will be at least 2030 (Juice mission) before we have a clue

Titan and Enceladus are also considered contenders for life right?

in mid 30's I still remember the feeling in the 1980's that true exploration, of our solar system, was just around the corner. It must have been worse for those growing up in the 1970s

I think that the idea of space exploration is a lost concept to many or the people born in the 90's or later

littlemac1980

Deleted User wrote: »

in mid 30's I still remember the feeling in the 1980's that true exploration, of our solar system, was just around the corner. It must have been worse for those growing up in the 1970s

I think that the idea of space exploration is a lost concept to many or the people born in the 90's or later

Yeah you're right. There just aren't enough nerds being born any more!

The cost and effort of getting to space is enormous but I firmly believe there must be an easier way, and the reason I know there is, is that there always is an easier way we just need to figure it out.

littlemac1980

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Yeah you're right. There just aren't enough nerds being born any more!

The cost and effort of getting to space is enormous but I firmly believe there must be an easier way, and the reason I know there is, is that there always is an easier way we just need to figure it out.

It's not even nerds though. It was part of the general consciousness, with shuttle missions being aired live and such

mickmackey1

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Titan and Enceladus are also considered contenders for life right?

Maybe the moons will turn out more interesting than the planets :cool:

irishgeo

i thin some life could be in the caves in mars.